All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

US Inbound: Foreign parent company loans to US subsidiaries

fuller.jpg

forst.jpg

Jim Fuller


David Forst

A somewhat surprising debt-equity case recently filed in the Tax Court involves a loan made to a related US company by a Luxembourg finance subsidiary of Tyco International, then a publicly-held Bermuda company. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) asserts it has "not been established" that the interest was paid on bona fide debt, but offers no further details. The US borrower's tax court petition states the loan was in the amount of $250 million; the US borrower made all interest payments due on the note; there were proper loan agreements with stated interest rates and a specified repayment schedule; the interest rates, amounts, and maturity dates were consistent with what would ordinarily have been available to the borrower from a third-party lender; and the US borrower had sufficient cash flow to service the debt. Assuming these are the facts, it is quite surprising that the IRS decided that it wants the case in court. These are the primary indicia of bona fide debt.

It is further surprising that the case was initiated by the IRS at all since it lost two major debt-equity cases just last year: NA General Partnership v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2012-172 (2012), involving ScottishPower; and PepsiCo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2012-269 (2012). ScottishPower, a UK company, made a loan to its US subsidiary. In PepsiCo, PepsiCo's Netherlands subsidiary issued an instrument to PepsiCo in the US. It will be interesting to see how the Tyco matter unfolds.

In another interesting development regarding an inbound loan by a foreign parent company to its US subsidiary, one which presumably is unrelated to the Tyco matter, the IRS issued Chief Counsel Advice 201334037. The Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) challenges the deductibility of interest paid to the foreign lender under three fact patterns. In Category 1, interest was paid to the foreign parent by netting a required interest payment against the foreign parent's new advance. Category 2 payments involved portions of a new advance by the foreign parent company that were "earmarked" to pay interest on the pre-existing debt in situations in which the interest payment was not netted. Category 3 payments were made close in time to new advances from the foreign parent.

According to the CCA, all three types of claimed interest payments were traceable to new loans or to draw-downs on pre-existing foreign parent lines of credit. The taxpayer (the US subsidiary) argued that correspondence between the times of the advances and its interest payments was not evidence of an economic linkage that could give rise to a deferral of the interest deductions. The taxpayer argued that it could have use or earmarked amounts other than the foreign parent company's advances to pay the interest on its pre-existing foreign-parent debt and correspondingly use the foreign-parent advances for other purposes.

The CCA rejects the taxpayer's arguments and asserts that the payments of interest were not payments for tax purposes since they involved circular cash flows. The CCA cites case law involving circular flows of funds and states that the principles and holdings of this line of cases apply in the context of purported payments of interest when those payments are part of a lender-borrower circular cash flow that may be subject to deferral under section 267(a)(3).

Thus, the interest expense deductions were disallowed on the grounds that the interest was not paid. Under section 267(a)(3), it had to be paid to be deducted. The CCA also states that the IRS will apply a heightened level of scrutiny to potential circular cash flows when related parties are involved and that it will look past the form of the parties' transactions to infer their private intentions from the objective economics of their transactions.

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com)

Tel: +1 650 335 7205

David Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)

Tel: +1 650 335 7274

Fenwick & West

Website: www.fenwick.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Biden administration is about to give $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service to enhance the tax authority’s enforcement processes and IT systems.
Audi, Porsche, and Kia say their US clients will face higher prices under the Inflation Reduction Act after the legislation axes an important tax credit for electric vehicle production.
This week Brazil’s former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva came out in support of uniting Brazil’s consumption taxes into one VAT regime, while the US Senate approved a corporate minimum tax rate.
The Dutch TP decree marks a turn in the Netherlands as the country aligns its tax policies with OECD standards over claims it is a tax haven.
Gorka Echevarria talks to reporter Siqalane Taho about how inflation, e-invoicing and technology are affecting the laser printing firm in a post-COVID world.
Tax directors have called on companies to better secure their data as they generate ever-increasing amounts of information due to greater government scrutiny.
Incoming amendments to the treaty could increase costs on non-resident Indian service providers.
Experts say the proposed minimum tax does not align with the OECD’s pillar two regime and risks other countries pulling out.
The Malawian government has targeted US gemstone miner Columbia Gem House, while Amgen has successfully consolidated two separate tax disputes with the Internal Revenue Service.
ITR's latest quarterly PDF is now live, leading on the rise of tax technology.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree